Author Topic: My guess...  (Read 1082 times)

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
My guess...
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2004, 06:09:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Guppy,

The reason for the 24s being preffered in those theaters came down to one reason only and it wasn't payload, flying characteristics or durbility.  It was range.


I might agree with you about it all being due to films if the Germans didn't also count the B-17 as markedly tougher with np prompting from Hollywood.


No question range was a huge issue in particular in the Pacific.  And I'm not saying that in terms of overall construction the 17 wasn't the tougher bird.  

I think the misconception is that the B24 was somehow 'fragile' and couldn't take damage.  And that it was that much tougher to fly.  It did the job and did it well in every theater of operations

They argued back and forth during  war about it between the 17 guys and 24 guys.  It's an old discussion :)

As for the LW guys, I imagine it's a bit like the Spit vs Hurri kills.  Reputation means a lot.  17 being the Spit of course and the 24 the Hurri.

And in the end you couldn't have done the job without both.

Dan/Slack
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline United

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
      • http://squadronspotlight.netfirms.com
My guess...
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2004, 06:16:18 PM »
Summed it up nicely there Guppy.  I think the only reason the 24 is less famous and well-known is because of the publicity the 17 recieved.  In England, you could have press members and cameramen set up along runways and things of the sort.  In the Pacific, it was constant action and there were no permanent bases, nor were there any actual safe points near the front lines.  Everyone wanted to see Hitler's army get smashed, the Japanese were almost a side-note to what was going on in Europe.  But, thats just my take.

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
My guess...
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2004, 05:11:54 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
Why only post that picture and not a corresponding screenshot to validate your statement or at least mention some specifics?  I just did a quick test firing of the Martin turret on the B-17 and it also shows a 20 foot pattern at 600 yards.




Yes I did test the gun dispersion but only on the b17’s tail gun. However, this was it was some time ago. As far as I know there's no way to change a setting that would allow the bomber guns to be fired on the ground.

I do not know if that changed in Ah2 but at the time I did my tests it was a real hassle getting everything "right" to test it.

Here's what I did:

1. From the b17 tail turret I took a screen shot of a 190d9. No zoom just standard view. The 190 flew level dead astern co alt.

2. I upped a b17 with low fuel no bombs, climbed to 1000ft and went into level auto pilot heading due south. I then set wind to 200 (IIRC) and shut off the b17 eng in an attempt to "hover". I felt this was necessary because the target flies along with the bomber maintaining 600yrds spacing. As such it would give me a false reading. The target would actual "fly into the bullet stream" and affect the dispersion pattern as the range isn’t really 600yrds. I guess I could have attempted the math but for what ever reason I tried the wind.

It was a real pain trying to get the b17 centered on the target and took many frustrating attempts. I got "close enough" for my liking and fired about 25 rounds and took an ss.

3. I then cut and pasted the 190 dead center on the target. I used this as a reference because I had no idea how far each ring of the target is spaced. (IIRC my assumption was +20 ft per ring).

I know a d9s wingspan is 34 ft. 5.5 in. and assumed the ah d9 was modeled to the correct dimensions.

The dispersion from the tail turret was within the wing span of the 190D9 at 600.

45ft > 34.5

Now I am open to the suggestion that my tests were flawed and if I have time I will reinstall Ah and try again. I will not attempt the top turret because I doubt I could get lined up right for a proper test. Unless there is some setting to allow bomber guns to fire from the ground that I do not know about. You obviously have an easier way to test it so I will take what ever find as fact to save myself the trouble or re-testing.

Unfortunately my tests were done years ago before the big week scenario and I no longer have film or a screenshot. If you say all is well and I am wrong then fine by me, I stand corrected.

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
My guess...
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2004, 08:56:25 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by TBolt A-10
First, isn't it "feet" instead of yards?

Second, where is the merge set at, Pyro?  I can't tell.

 


I'm not sure what you're referring to.  600 yards was the test conditions in the test that Wotan posted.

The convergence from different gun turrets is 600 yards, but I'm not talking about that.  This was just a test of an individual turret.

BTW, do me a favor and clean up your avatar.  Thanks.

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
My guess...
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2004, 09:01:46 AM »
Wotan, each ring is 10 feet so the innermost ring has a diameter of 20 feet.  I recognize your scan from the Gunners book, but don't have time to check it out right now.  Does that tail gun figure represent the Cheyenne turret or the earlier one?

Offline TBolt A-10

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1142
      • http://www.picturehangar.com
My guess...
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2004, 12:01:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
BTW, do me a favor and clean up your avatar.  Thanks.


What's wrong with my avatard?  The girls aren't nude.  And, the PH*CK word is intentionally misspelled.  

:confused: :confused:


nevermind...fixed.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2004, 12:18:23 PM by TBolt A-10 »

Offline Horn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
My guess...
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2004, 12:45:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by TBolt A-10
What's wrong with my avatard?  The girls aren't nude.  And, the PH*CK word is intentionally misspelled.  

:confused: :confused:


nevermind...fixed.


hehe the coke bottle up someones butt xray is so much better lol

Offline TBolt A-10

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1142
      • http://www.picturehangar.com
My guess...
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2004, 12:56:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Horn
hehe the coke bottle up someones butt xray is so much better lol


I always thought the bottle was....ummm...in another...ummmm...hole.  ;) :lol

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
My guess...
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2004, 06:18:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
Wotan, each ring is 10 feet so the innermost ring has a diameter of 20 feet.  I recognize your scan from the Gunners book, but don't have time to check it out right now.  Does that tail gun figure represent the Cheyenne turret or the earlier one?


Yup these are from:



GUNNER: An Illustrated History of World War II Aircraft Turrets and Gun Positions

By Donald Nijboer

The Boston Mills Press

ISBN 1-55046-332-2

I have most of my books boxed up. I live in Florida and had to prepare for those hurricanes. I will dig it out this weekend and post an answer early next week. I assume you will be busy having fun at the con over the weekend.